Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pet Planning Issues |
Divorce and Custody Issues (2020) |
Policy | ||
| In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger | (Decisions Without Published Opinions) 834 N.W.2d 82 (Table) (2013) | (unpublished) 2013 WL 1749799 | Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody. | Case |
| UT - Impound - Chapter 46. Animal Welfare Act. Part 1. General Provisions | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-101 - 104 | UT ST § 11-46-101 - 104 | Under this act, animal control officers must hold stray animals in safe and humane custody for a minimum of 5 business days prior to making any final disposition of the animal. A stray animal may be euthanized prior to the completion of the 5-day period to prevent unnecessary suffering due to serious injury or disease. | Statute |
| NY - Fur - Chapter 20. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's General Business Law § 399-aaa | NY GEN BUS § 399-aaa | Makes it illegal for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to knowingly import, sell at retail or manufacture clothing with fur which is not properly labeled as containing "faux fur" or "real fur." Defines appropriate labeling by adding the appropriate description to the permanent tag attached to the clothing, a temporary tag to identify the clothing, or by affixing a sticker with the description in a conspicuous place on the clothing. Sets the maximum punishment to not exceed a $500 fine for the first violation and not to exceed $1000 for each subsequent violation. | Statute |
| State v. Smith | 223 P.3d 1262 (Wash.App. Div. 2, 2009) | 2009 WL 5108382 (Wash.App. Div. 2) |
In this Washington case, defendant Smith appealed his conviction for first degree animal cruelty following the death of his llama. Smith claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to (1) discover information before trial that may have explained the llama's death and (2) seek a lesser included instruction on second degree animal cruelty. This court agreed. It found that defense counsel's "all or nothing strategy" was not a legitimate trial tactic and constituted deficient performance where counsel presented evidence to call into question the State's theory on starvation, but not evidence related to the entire crime. The court found that the jury was "left in an arduous position: to either convict Smith of first degree animal cruelty or to let him go free despite evidence of some culpable behavior." The case was reversed and remanded. |
Case |
| People v. Tohom | 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2013) | 109 A.D.3d 253; 2013 WL 3455673 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.); 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05234 |
This case, as a matter of first impression, considers whether a trial court was authorized to allow a "therapeutic comfort dog" to be present on witness stand for a 15-year-old-girl who was the victim in a predatory sexual assault and child endangerment case. Prosecutors sought to allow a Golden Retriever named Rose to accompany the child on the witness stand while she testified at the defendant’s trial. Prosecutors cited Criminal Procedure Law provisions regarding special witnesses and pointed to Executive Law §642-a, which allows a person supportive of a special witness to be “present and accessible” during testimony by such a witness. On appeal, defendant again argued that the dog would prejudice the jury against the defendant and would convey to the jury that the witness was under stress as a result of testifying and that this stress resulted from telling the truth. In finding that the comfort dog did not violate defendant's right to a fair trial, the appellate court agreed that the trial court's interpretation of Executive Law § 642-a "special witness" provision was correct. Further, the defendant failed to show that the dog Rose's presence was inherently prejudicial. |
Case |
| Northern Ireland - Farm animal - Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 | 2012 No. 156 | Regulations placing duties on persons responsible for farmed animals, to include: the conditions under which animals are kept; and specific conditions for laying hens, reared meat chickens, caves, cattle, pigs and rabbits. | Statute | |
| NY - Research animals - § 239-b. Research dogs and cats | McKinney's Education Law § 239-b | NY EDUC § 239-b | This New York law, effective in 2016, provides that a publicly-funded higher education research facility must assess the health of the dog or cat and determine whether it is suitable for adoption after the research and testing on the animal is completed. That research facility must then make reasonable efforts to offer for adoption the dog or cat determined to be suitable for adoption, either through private placement or through an animal rescue/organization. | Statute |
| RI - Veterinary - Chapter 25. Veterinary Practice | Gen. Laws, 1956 § 5-25-1 to 17 | RI ST § 5-25-1 to 17 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| NC - Dangerous Dogs - Chapter 67. Dogs | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-14.1 | NC ST § 67-14.1 | This North Carolina statute provides that any dog which trails, runs, injures or kills any deer or bear on any wildlife refuge, sanctuary or management area designated by the Wildlife Resources Commission, during the closed season for hunting with dogs on such refuge or management area, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance, and any wildlife protector may destroy it by humane method. Any unmuzzled dog running at large in such area shall be impounded and notice shall be published in some newspaper published in the county for two successive weeks. If no owner comes to claim the dog, it may be destroyed within 15 days after publication. | Statute |